Trigger effect

Published: Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 08:00 AM.

There are legitimate concerns about the “trigger.” Do parents have enough knowledge to sort through the slick salesmanship of outside management firms and select successful models? What if a large minority of parents at a school opposes the majority’s improvement plan? That could divisively pit neighbor against neighbor. And what if parents are part of a school’s problem?

The “trigger” is not the only solution, and it may not even be the best one.

But the debate has again revealed competing ideas of public education.

At its core it is a philosophy, not a way of doing things. Society benefits from having an educated populace, hence public money should be spent on schooling. Tax dollars should be an investment in individuals, not institutions, and those individuals should have a say in how that money is spent. It shouldn’t matter how students learn, so long as they do. An educated child is a valid return on that investment — period.

“Follow the money!” cry opponents, who worry that the legislation is a stalking horse for for-profit charter school companies to take over the failing schools. But what’s the problem if they do — and student performance improves? Why does it matter who spends the money, so long as it gets the intended results? There should be ample safeguards and transparency to ensure the money is not misappropriated and that schools are held accountable — a strategy that applies to every school that receives public funding. If a school, be it traditional or charter, isn’t getting the job done, either change management or shut it down.

Because children learn in various ways and parents demand different things, families should have many education options from which to choose — traditional, magnet, charter, etc. They should not be trapped in chronically low-performing schools. Whether it’s by a “trigger” or other methods, parents need the tools to do what’s best for their children.

For the second consecutive year the controversial “parent trigger” bill is moving through the Florida Legislature, once again exposing deep divisions about the nature of public education.

The House last week passed HB 867, titled “Parent Empowerment in Education” but more commonly known as the “parent trigger.” It primarily allows parents to have a seat at the table in how to improve their children’s failing public school. If a school receives an F, the local district must select from a list of four turnaround options, which can include an entirely new staff or even new management. The “trigger” consists of a majority of parents at the school recommending an option as well.

The parents don’t have final say. If a school district declines to adopt the parent solution and chooses one of its own, the state Department of Education would select between the two plans.

The legislation forces districts to consider parental input on the worst of the state’s schools. The districts already should be doing that.

Indeed, Bay District Superintendent Bill Husfelt, who recently told The News Herald’s Matthew Beaton that he didn’t think the state should be “meddling in local districts’ authority,” says that if parents are having problems with their school they should take their complaints to their School Board member. In addition, the district will meet with parents and get their input on improving schools. He also noted that there are school advisory councils, where parents are “begged” to get involved.

He’s right. There shouldn’t be a need for a “parent trigger” — unless local officials are ignoring their clients, the parents of students.

That’s what happened in California, where the “trigger” movement started. Highly bureaucratized and unionized districts weren’t being responsive to parental complaints, so legislation was passed to break the educrats’ stranglehold. A similar law in Florida might provide extra incentive for districts to listen to parents — and for parents to become more involved in their children’s education. Ideally, the measure never would be employed.

There are legitimate concerns about the “trigger.” Do parents have enough knowledge to sort through the slick salesmanship of outside management firms and select successful models? What if a large minority of parents at a school opposes the majority’s improvement plan? That could divisively pit neighbor against neighbor. And what if parents are part of a school’s problem?

The “trigger” is not the only solution, and it may not even be the best one.

But the debate has again revealed competing ideas of public education.

At its core it is a philosophy, not a way of doing things. Society benefits from having an educated populace, hence public money should be spent on schooling. Tax dollars should be an investment in individuals, not institutions, and those individuals should have a say in how that money is spent. It shouldn’t matter how students learn, so long as they do. An educated child is a valid return on that investment — period.

“Follow the money!” cry opponents, who worry that the legislation is a stalking horse for for-profit charter school companies to take over the failing schools. But what’s the problem if they do — and student performance improves? Why does it matter who spends the money, so long as it gets the intended results?
There should be ample safeguards and transparency to ensure the money is not misappropriated and that schools are held accountable — a strategy that applies to every school that receives public funding. If a school, be it traditional or charter, isn’t getting the job done, either change management or shut it down.

Because children learn in various ways and parents demand different things, families should have many education options from which to choose — traditional, magnet, charter, etc. They should not be trapped in chronically low-performing schools. Whether it’s by a “trigger” or other methods, parents need the tools to do what’s best for their children.